DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
9/5/2011
The African Union (AU), a body representing 54 nations of that vast continent, called on all its members last July 1 to disregard the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Libya’s Moammar Kadhafi. Jean Ping, Gabonese diplomat and current chairman of the AU’s administrative branch, referred to the ICC as “discriminatory” in that it only goes after alleged crimes committed in Africa while ignoring the many serious ones perpetrated by the West in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Before that, there was already increasing criticism in Africa against the ICC, a court repeatedly denounced as an instrument of neocolonialism. A few years earlier (in 2009), an arrest warrant issued by the ICC against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan was similarly rejected by the AU. Bashir had even challenged the order by traveling all over Africa, tempting Western powers to coax any of the AU member-states to arrest him — something that the union obviously did not capitulate to.
Elsewhere within the AU, the ICC also managed to perform a similar stunt. In Côte d’Ivoire, a year after its elections were marked with massive fraud by the camp of former IMF executive-turned-presidential candidate Alassane Ouatara, which was used by the West, led by France, as a pretext for storming the presidential palace of then incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo to effect his arrest, the ICC is now threatening to launch investigations into alleged post-election violence there.
Still, the earliest target and victim of the ICC was Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. The late journalist Olley Maruma wrote about this in the Southern Times of South Africa: “Following the defeat of Serbia, Milosevic was abducted by Nato commandos and taken to the Hague… That the United States, which is not a member of the ICC, was the principal organizer of Milosevic’s trial at the Hague, exposed the fraud of the entire enterprise.”
In his article, “ICC — ‘Western kangaroo court,’” Maruma tells us that “In Africa, the International Criminal Court at the Hague is considered by many to be a Western kangaroo court set up to hound, jail and silence African and Third World leaders who refuse to submit to the grip of Western hegemony and domination… One hundred and eight states are members of the court. Among those that have refused to join are China, Russia, India and the United States… The widely-held negative view of the ICC was neatly summed up by Miguel d’Escoto Brockman, the president of the United Nations General Assembly… (who) dismissed the ICC’s indictment on Al-Bashir as ‘absurd and politically motivated… (noting that) A few people with a very dubious past and with very little credibility pretend to know better than the whole African Union’… (which is why he argued) that for international justice to regain its credibility, ‘it would be important to begin by indicting people from powerful nations, not to pick on the smaller ones.’”
The powerful, and to be precise Western, nations have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and, now, in Libya (with 30,000 bombs dropped in 8,000 runs). The numbers of innocent lives these Western powers have killed cannot be matched by the military capacity of those tyrants even if they had the desire to.
All told, the ICC is a kangaroo court of the West; as a forum for justice, it is a fraud. The West’s crimes abound with impunity, yet there are a number of Filipino personalities still praising the ICC, such as writer Ceres Doyo or legal “luminaries” Raul Pangalangan and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Could this be motivated by what many believe is a naked ambition (of some) to join the ICC bench to jump in cadence to the march of Western imperialism?
An honest look at the record of the ICC is all that is required to see the truth behind it, as our 18-year-old scholar and regular radio text-discussant Angeline Lim messaged to us: “The ICC is running after Kadhafi, but the likes of Kissinger, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, and particularly Cheney who was responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures (one of the most disturbing pictures leaked out was that of a detainee tied to a wooden crate with electric wires attached to his private parts, hands and feet), have clearly violated the Geneva Conventions and human rights, yet they are untouchable; this clearly shows the ICC is only after select enemies.”
And in another text she said: “Gen. Wesley Clark, commander of the Nato air war against Serbia, is liable under the Geneva Convention of ’49 for the illegal bombing of water treatment plants, hospitals, and schools which killed 2,000 while Bosnian Gen. Obrenovic who led the assault on Srebrenica was turned over to the war crimes court in the Hague. This is the same situation for the ICC against Milosevic.” Quite simply, Angeline is able to easily discern the truth from historical facts as she is untainted by a fraudulent mind.
Back here at home, the Philippines also has its own miniscule secessionist minority — the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), along with its rogues such as commander Umbra Kato — that has continued to sow violence and terror to attract international attention and invite foreign intervention.
Catering to the foreign powers seeking entry into our areas of natural wealth, particularly oil and gas in Mindanao and the Sulu Sea, the MILF, as did the Kosovo Liberation Army and the al-Qaeda in Libya (both Nato instruments), is sure to carry out civilian massacres to compel the Philippine military to react and bring about collateral damage, which will serve as basis for an ICC indictment. Philippine police and military forces are then going to be stymied or criminalized, both resulting in the debilitation of the authority and sovereignty of the RP government.
As Western powers through the ICC have done this before, they will surely do it again to regain as many lost ground since World War II, all in the advancement of their neocolonial resurgence this century.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino/Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Saturday, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8 on “Sci-Tech Innovations: Key to Filipinos’ Economic Emancipation” with DoST NCR Director Tess Fortuna and DoST innovators; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Monday, September 5, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Reminiscing the Cold War
BACKBENCHER
Rod Kapunan
9/3-4/2011
The latest foray of international gangsterism by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has caused people from countries that suffered the ruthlessness of modern-day imperialism to reminisce on the positive aspects of the Cold War. Although it was costly because of the unbridled arms race between the US and the then Soviet Union, it significantly produced its own built-in mechanism that prevented the spiraling of the conflict to one of cataclysmic global war.
To the “pacifists,” the arms race was something of a negative legacy. But to the realists, the race for nuclear superiority was seen as a natural deterrent that prevented reckless attempts to engage in incalculable adventurism. From there, the concept of a balance of power evolved to a balance of terror, and out of that looming shadow of nuclear war, a highly demarcated geo-political landscape was carved.
In a world then polarized by two ideologies, the important thing a country could do was to keep itself out of the military alliance. The socialist bloc had their war machine known as the Warsaw Pact, and the capitalist bloc had its NATO while hypocritically pirouetting as the “Free World.” Nonetheless, it was during that period that the so-called “Non-Aligned” bloc came to birth and gained relevance.
In fact, many international relations analysts attribute the peak of the Cold War as the Golden Age of the non-aligned movement because it was during that period when they succeeded in enhancing their international prestige, in bargaining for more economic assistance in exchange for keeping themselves out of the alliance, and most importantly, in keeping their territory free from proxy war that traditionally was understood as civil war, except for the added dimension of ideology.
The Bandung Conference in 1954 laid down the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Unfortunately, after the collapse of the socialist bloc, it was promptly substituted by the warmongering policy of “unilateralism.” The Five Principles include: 1) Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; 2) Non-aggression; 3) Non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; 4) Equality and mutual benefit; and, 5) Peaceful coexistence. It was the attending leaders of the non-aligned nations, principally of China’s foremost statesman Zhou Enlai who came out with that novel idea.
Peaceful coexistence was most relevant despite the frosty relationship between the two contending superpowers. As one pretends to wage war in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” the other supported the “people’s war” for national liberation. Nonetheless, the Soviets and the Americans inhibited themselves from any direct confrontation that could easily escalate into an all-out war, although limited or proxy wars continued to rage in Africa, Latin America and Asia. In that context, the proxy wars remained an internal conflict that need to be settled by the people in that war-torn state pursuant to the principle of peaceful coexistence.
Even as countries in the Third World were subjected to the rigors of subversion and destabilization, on the whole, they were able to resolve their internal conflict. The two superpowers by the compulsive realism of the balance of terror had to respect that peace agreement, thus effectively putting forward limitations to interference. More so, if it would partake of an act of aggression against a member-state of the military alliance set up by the US and the Soviet Union.
Today, weak states cherish the invaluable positive legacies of the Cold War. There is no doubt it elicited obedience to international law; and for all the acrimonious debate at the UN General Assembly, respect for the international body was maintained. It is for this why they could not comprehend why Russia and China had to unilaterally forego the Cold War after they shifted their economic system to capitalism. They could not in fact see the logical connection. It was considered tragic for it constricted their strategic influence even endangered their territorial integrity and survival.
Some say that had it not for their old arsenal of nuclear weapons left over by the arms race, criminal states like the US and its confederates in NATO could have easily completed in erasing them from the map by the simple expedient of fanning the flames of separatist rebellion. In fact, no sooner after it metamorphosed to Russia, it found itself surrounded by a string of US military bases stationed in the erstwhile Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Georgia.
It even has to fight a bloody internal rebellion in Chechnya. As if to consummate the move to isolate it, the US enticed the former members of the Warsaw Pact to join the expanded umbrella of NATO, and humiliating it by threatening to install an anti-ballistic missile system, virtually at its doorstep, in Poland, Hungary and Romania.
China, too, experienced its own bloody upheavals beginning with the infamous agitation for “democracy” by disoriented students at Tiananmen Square in 1989 who clamored for the selling of their country to imperialism. Later, agitations spread deep into Lhasa in Tibet and Urumqi in Xingjian province. All these happened after the end of the Cold War.
The absence of any power to check the onslaught of US and NATO aggression eroded much the stature of the United Nations to a point that it has almost been reduced it as the mouthpiece of the US State Department. In that sense, international law reverted as a mere idealism of Hugo Grotius. Jingoism which was once restrained by the balance of terror regained prominence. All these were amplified by the US and NATO forays in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya shamelessly carrying the banner of the UN and even requesting lackey states to contribute to the peacekeeping force to internationalize their war of aggression.
In the unfortunate case of Libya, even if the US and NATO had the permission of the UN Security Council because of the favorable vote cast by China and Russia to impose a “no-fly-zone”, the scope of that UN resolution was limited to preventing Qaddafi’s forces from using their aircraft to strafe and bomb rebel positions or to use them to transport troops. In military parlance, the “no-fly-zone” was strictly confined to grounding the Libyan air force. But as events unfurled, the resolution became their license to savagely carry out gangsterism against Libya. In that the UN became a fait accompli to commit aggression against an independent state. It is for this why many are saying it could not have happened had Russia and China not capitulated to ending the Cold War.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Rod Kapunan
9/3-4/2011
The latest foray of international gangsterism by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has caused people from countries that suffered the ruthlessness of modern-day imperialism to reminisce on the positive aspects of the Cold War. Although it was costly because of the unbridled arms race between the US and the then Soviet Union, it significantly produced its own built-in mechanism that prevented the spiraling of the conflict to one of cataclysmic global war.
To the “pacifists,” the arms race was something of a negative legacy. But to the realists, the race for nuclear superiority was seen as a natural deterrent that prevented reckless attempts to engage in incalculable adventurism. From there, the concept of a balance of power evolved to a balance of terror, and out of that looming shadow of nuclear war, a highly demarcated geo-political landscape was carved.
In a world then polarized by two ideologies, the important thing a country could do was to keep itself out of the military alliance. The socialist bloc had their war machine known as the Warsaw Pact, and the capitalist bloc had its NATO while hypocritically pirouetting as the “Free World.” Nonetheless, it was during that period that the so-called “Non-Aligned” bloc came to birth and gained relevance.
In fact, many international relations analysts attribute the peak of the Cold War as the Golden Age of the non-aligned movement because it was during that period when they succeeded in enhancing their international prestige, in bargaining for more economic assistance in exchange for keeping themselves out of the alliance, and most importantly, in keeping their territory free from proxy war that traditionally was understood as civil war, except for the added dimension of ideology.
The Bandung Conference in 1954 laid down the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Unfortunately, after the collapse of the socialist bloc, it was promptly substituted by the warmongering policy of “unilateralism.” The Five Principles include: 1) Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; 2) Non-aggression; 3) Non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; 4) Equality and mutual benefit; and, 5) Peaceful coexistence. It was the attending leaders of the non-aligned nations, principally of China’s foremost statesman Zhou Enlai who came out with that novel idea.
Peaceful coexistence was most relevant despite the frosty relationship between the two contending superpowers. As one pretends to wage war in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” the other supported the “people’s war” for national liberation. Nonetheless, the Soviets and the Americans inhibited themselves from any direct confrontation that could easily escalate into an all-out war, although limited or proxy wars continued to rage in Africa, Latin America and Asia. In that context, the proxy wars remained an internal conflict that need to be settled by the people in that war-torn state pursuant to the principle of peaceful coexistence.
Even as countries in the Third World were subjected to the rigors of subversion and destabilization, on the whole, they were able to resolve their internal conflict. The two superpowers by the compulsive realism of the balance of terror had to respect that peace agreement, thus effectively putting forward limitations to interference. More so, if it would partake of an act of aggression against a member-state of the military alliance set up by the US and the Soviet Union.
Today, weak states cherish the invaluable positive legacies of the Cold War. There is no doubt it elicited obedience to international law; and for all the acrimonious debate at the UN General Assembly, respect for the international body was maintained. It is for this why they could not comprehend why Russia and China had to unilaterally forego the Cold War after they shifted their economic system to capitalism. They could not in fact see the logical connection. It was considered tragic for it constricted their strategic influence even endangered their territorial integrity and survival.
Some say that had it not for their old arsenal of nuclear weapons left over by the arms race, criminal states like the US and its confederates in NATO could have easily completed in erasing them from the map by the simple expedient of fanning the flames of separatist rebellion. In fact, no sooner after it metamorphosed to Russia, it found itself surrounded by a string of US military bases stationed in the erstwhile Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Georgia.
It even has to fight a bloody internal rebellion in Chechnya. As if to consummate the move to isolate it, the US enticed the former members of the Warsaw Pact to join the expanded umbrella of NATO, and humiliating it by threatening to install an anti-ballistic missile system, virtually at its doorstep, in Poland, Hungary and Romania.
China, too, experienced its own bloody upheavals beginning with the infamous agitation for “democracy” by disoriented students at Tiananmen Square in 1989 who clamored for the selling of their country to imperialism. Later, agitations spread deep into Lhasa in Tibet and Urumqi in Xingjian province. All these happened after the end of the Cold War.
The absence of any power to check the onslaught of US and NATO aggression eroded much the stature of the United Nations to a point that it has almost been reduced it as the mouthpiece of the US State Department. In that sense, international law reverted as a mere idealism of Hugo Grotius. Jingoism which was once restrained by the balance of terror regained prominence. All these were amplified by the US and NATO forays in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya shamelessly carrying the banner of the UN and even requesting lackey states to contribute to the peacekeeping force to internationalize their war of aggression.
In the unfortunate case of Libya, even if the US and NATO had the permission of the UN Security Council because of the favorable vote cast by China and Russia to impose a “no-fly-zone”, the scope of that UN resolution was limited to preventing Qaddafi’s forces from using their aircraft to strafe and bomb rebel positions or to use them to transport troops. In military parlance, the “no-fly-zone” was strictly confined to grounding the Libyan air force. But as events unfurled, the resolution became their license to savagely carry out gangsterism against Libya. In that the UN became a fait accompli to commit aggression against an independent state. It is for this why many are saying it could not have happened had Russia and China not capitulated to ending the Cold War.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Friday, September 2, 2011
A tale of two pension funds
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
9/1/2011
Two pension funds dominate the skyline of social security in the Philippines: The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) with its 1.5 million members and the massive Social Security System (SSS) that serves 29 million workers in the private sector.
The SSS is celebrating its 54th anniversary this year and various festivities are set to mark the occasion, from special benefits for members to an awards ceremony cum tribute to journalists. But to me, through all its 54 years, it was in the past 10 years that the SSS distinguished itself when it surmounted adverse political and financial challenges arising from what many see as unprecedented corruption under Gloria Arroyo. Its older sister, the GSIS, wasn’t as fortunate as it was overwhelmingly damaged by the worst political and financial abuses of the past decade.
The SSS’ 29 million members, along with its thousands of staff and employees, indeed have good reason to celebrate today: At the start of the Arroyo era in 2001 came an immediate existential challenge when the newly-appointed leadership mounted an attempt to initiate the fund’s privatization. The SSS union, the Active and Concerned Employees of the SSS or AcceSSS, staged daily lunch time pickets (which I joined) in front of SSS offices nationwide and succeeded in ousting the Malacañang-appointed “privateer.” If privatization pushed through, the SSS could have faced the same fate as many privatized pension funds all over the world — enticed into the heady and freewheeling private sector financial speculation that unraveled in the 2008 financial collapse. The SSS, in staying public, was thus more conservative and preserved itself.
Also to their credit, active employee-leaders of the SSS put on a brave and militant face against the Arroyo administration, which led the latter to tread carefully in appointing the next administrator.
Fortunately, the new administrator kept herself within the strictures of sound management. It was not until the last appointment made by Arroyo in the wake of the ZTE-NBN scandal that the peace at the SSS was broken.
In all, while the pension fund cruised through 2002 to 2009 successfully, trouble brewed and persisted at the GSIS. A political appointee was entrenched by the past government to head the state pension fund. Without any known credentials, this political scion enthroned at the GSIS proceeded to establish his fiefdom; discriminated against career officers; and redirected GSIS policies to disastrous results.
One of the first things that the then newly-installed GSIS administration did was to “privatize” the P20-billion fund, by transferring its deposits from the state-owned Land Bank of the Philippines to the Union Bank of the Aboitizes. As the latter had only a tenth of the number of ATMs of Land Bank, this severely inconvenienced GSIS members, notwithstanding the clear violation of the law requiring all government funds to be deposited in government banks. After this, many GSIS programs were also redirected on the pretext of building up the fund’s financial resources, but which redounded to reduced benefits.
The GSIS union, in the wake of imagined euphoria post-Edsa II, first attempted a dialog with management but was faced with intransigence and hostility. To cover up this increasing tension, bigwigs at the GSIS purportedly increased their media budget tenfold to paint a rosy picture. Union leaders were eventually fired; and they are still waiting for justice and restoration to this day.
Unlike the GSIS, SSS staff and employees, along with their roster of members from the private sector, were all impervious to the political machinations of Malacañang. The militancy of the SSS union put the Malacañang appointee on the spot very early on.
While a balance of power at the SSS helped maintain adherence to sound management and financial policies, the concentration of power at the GSIS led to alleged massive abuse of its funds.
These abuses at the GSIS ultimately led to the $1-billion investment in Wall Street schemes that caused it hundreds of millions of dollars in losses in the 2008 crash. The present GSIS management recently reported pulling out of these investments. But, without any prosecution in the offing and with nobody knowing how much the past GSIS administration lost in that Wall Street bloodbath, isn’t this just papering over past misdeeds?
On the other hand, the SSS rose from the dark Arroyo decade clean and strong. Kudos to its management, professional staff, and thousands of employees for this. I look forward to my retirement age in a few months’ time, knowing that my contributions are wisely managed. As professionalism and alert union activism have been key to maintaining a healthy SSS, we’ll always be in support of these. To the media affairs office of the SSS, our congratulations for your continued support of information freedom! That is a supreme evidence of the kind of professionalism SSS management is known for.
(My new e-mail: mentong2011@gmail.com. Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino/Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Saturday, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “The ALBA: A Latin American Revolution” with Ambassadors Manuel Perez-Iturbe of Venezuela and Juan Carlos Arencibia Corrales of Cuba; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Herman Tiu Laurel
9/1/2011
Two pension funds dominate the skyline of social security in the Philippines: The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) with its 1.5 million members and the massive Social Security System (SSS) that serves 29 million workers in the private sector.
The SSS is celebrating its 54th anniversary this year and various festivities are set to mark the occasion, from special benefits for members to an awards ceremony cum tribute to journalists. But to me, through all its 54 years, it was in the past 10 years that the SSS distinguished itself when it surmounted adverse political and financial challenges arising from what many see as unprecedented corruption under Gloria Arroyo. Its older sister, the GSIS, wasn’t as fortunate as it was overwhelmingly damaged by the worst political and financial abuses of the past decade.
The SSS’ 29 million members, along with its thousands of staff and employees, indeed have good reason to celebrate today: At the start of the Arroyo era in 2001 came an immediate existential challenge when the newly-appointed leadership mounted an attempt to initiate the fund’s privatization. The SSS union, the Active and Concerned Employees of the SSS or AcceSSS, staged daily lunch time pickets (which I joined) in front of SSS offices nationwide and succeeded in ousting the Malacañang-appointed “privateer.” If privatization pushed through, the SSS could have faced the same fate as many privatized pension funds all over the world — enticed into the heady and freewheeling private sector financial speculation that unraveled in the 2008 financial collapse. The SSS, in staying public, was thus more conservative and preserved itself.
Also to their credit, active employee-leaders of the SSS put on a brave and militant face against the Arroyo administration, which led the latter to tread carefully in appointing the next administrator.
Fortunately, the new administrator kept herself within the strictures of sound management. It was not until the last appointment made by Arroyo in the wake of the ZTE-NBN scandal that the peace at the SSS was broken.
In all, while the pension fund cruised through 2002 to 2009 successfully, trouble brewed and persisted at the GSIS. A political appointee was entrenched by the past government to head the state pension fund. Without any known credentials, this political scion enthroned at the GSIS proceeded to establish his fiefdom; discriminated against career officers; and redirected GSIS policies to disastrous results.
One of the first things that the then newly-installed GSIS administration did was to “privatize” the P20-billion fund, by transferring its deposits from the state-owned Land Bank of the Philippines to the Union Bank of the Aboitizes. As the latter had only a tenth of the number of ATMs of Land Bank, this severely inconvenienced GSIS members, notwithstanding the clear violation of the law requiring all government funds to be deposited in government banks. After this, many GSIS programs were also redirected on the pretext of building up the fund’s financial resources, but which redounded to reduced benefits.
The GSIS union, in the wake of imagined euphoria post-Edsa II, first attempted a dialog with management but was faced with intransigence and hostility. To cover up this increasing tension, bigwigs at the GSIS purportedly increased their media budget tenfold to paint a rosy picture. Union leaders were eventually fired; and they are still waiting for justice and restoration to this day.
Unlike the GSIS, SSS staff and employees, along with their roster of members from the private sector, were all impervious to the political machinations of Malacañang. The militancy of the SSS union put the Malacañang appointee on the spot very early on.
While a balance of power at the SSS helped maintain adherence to sound management and financial policies, the concentration of power at the GSIS led to alleged massive abuse of its funds.
These abuses at the GSIS ultimately led to the $1-billion investment in Wall Street schemes that caused it hundreds of millions of dollars in losses in the 2008 crash. The present GSIS management recently reported pulling out of these investments. But, without any prosecution in the offing and with nobody knowing how much the past GSIS administration lost in that Wall Street bloodbath, isn’t this just papering over past misdeeds?
On the other hand, the SSS rose from the dark Arroyo decade clean and strong. Kudos to its management, professional staff, and thousands of employees for this. I look forward to my retirement age in a few months’ time, knowing that my contributions are wisely managed. As professionalism and alert union activism have been key to maintaining a healthy SSS, we’ll always be in support of these. To the media affairs office of the SSS, our congratulations for your continued support of information freedom! That is a supreme evidence of the kind of professionalism SSS management is known for.
(My new e-mail: mentong2011@gmail.com. Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino/Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Saturday, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “The ALBA: A Latin American Revolution” with Ambassadors Manuel Perez-Iturbe of Venezuela and Juan Carlos Arencibia Corrales of Cuba; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
